Latest Post

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.

A bona fide purchaser long prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance by the Respondent, specific performance could not be enforced against her or her transferees as they would fall within the exception of transferee for value who had paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract – Appellant would fall within the exception set out in Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, being transferees who had paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRAS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNAVENI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 5384-5385…

Companies Act, 2013 – Sections 243, 237(b), 433, 433(a), 433(g), 433(h), 433(i) and 439(1)(f) – Winding up – If the conduct of the affairs of the company in a fraudulent manner is a continuing process, the right to apply winding up becomes recurring: – Main departure of the 2013 Act from the statutory regime of the 1956 Act, is the specific inclusion of fraud, directly as one of the circumstances in which a company could be wound up –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Security Case – Security lapse – Questions cannot be left to be resolved through one­sided enquiries – A judicially trained independent mind, duly assisted by officers who are well acquainted with the security considerations and the Registrar General of the High Court who has seized the record pursuant to earlier order, would be best placed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LAWYERS VOICE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli,…

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – Writ petitions against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not required to be entertained by the High Court – Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Declaration of guardian of a minor – Issue regarding custody of a minor child and the issue of the repatriation of the child to the native country has to be addressed on the sole criteria of the welfare of the minor and not on consideration of the legal rights of the parents – if interest of the minor which is the paramount consideration requires that the custody of a minor child should not be with the mother, the Court will be justified in disturbing the custody of the mother even if the age of the minor is less than five years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASUDHA SETHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KIRAN V. BHASKAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Deficiency in service – Failure of builder to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – Respondent-builder was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate – Failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – members of society society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

(IPC) – Section 498A – Cruelty – When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence – If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable – appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, sentence reduced.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MEERA — Appellant Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVOTRIYUR POLICE STATION CHENNAI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Murder of disabled person – Cancellation of Bail – – Accused is a person exercising significant political influence and that owing to the same, the informant found it difficult to get an FIR registered against him – That the accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest – Thus, the possibility of the accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR KHOKHAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 – Ss 12, 13 and 13(6) – N D and P S Act, 1985 – Section 21(b) – Respondent transferred to India on agreement between Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners – High Court reduced the sentence from 26 years to 10 years – Sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAIKH ISTIYAQ AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Board Resolution be approved by General Body and the resolutions for the years 1995 ­2000 were not traced, it has been commented in the Report that the Board resolution is without authorisation – Respondent is a member of the Society and being entitled to allotment of a plot – Allotment being of the year 2000, construction has also been raised – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS .ETC. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima…

You missed